Great detail from RX100

Started Sep 1, 2012 | Discussions thread
FocalPoint_L Regular Member • Posts: 230
Re: Great detail from RX100 & comment on ACR vs DxO


Thanks for posting your observations.

As I also found, the Sony JPEGs don't gain much in detail from Raw processing. And this isn't typical. So you could say they're really great JPEGs or you could say ACR could do better. I tend to think that Sony made some excellent trade-offs between detail and noise (at least in the low ISO range I've been playing with).

Of course, there's still the other reasons to shoot Raw: WB, DR, turn off the NR and use a third-party tool, etc. But most of the time, the JPEGs will be good. And that's without considering using DRO (which pulls from the Raw data I assume--not just the 8-bit JPEG data) and HDR. Little-by-little the cameras are doing more and more that used to require a computer.

On ACR vs. DxO. I agree that the two products' use models of adjusting exposure, tone curve, and color are so different, that you'd need a lot of practice to match one to the other. DxO uses local contrast by default, for example. You could use USM with a large radius and very low amount in ACR to mimic it. And on and on.

However, I do think DxO beats ACR at this time in having a better lens model and the edges are quite a bit better. Try a landscape with even detail across the frame and see what you think. And their default seems to a great job of keeping noise low for the amount of detail displayed.

Still, this can be quite a job to sort out (using an audio analogy, comparing an electrostatic speaker like the MartinLogan Montis to a horn-loaded speaker like the Avantgarde Uno Nano must be a similar problem ).

The RX100 is still a great camera!


Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow